Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: This is bad – very bad, in reply to ,
If it helps, I think I agree that there is no point imposing criminal penalties on those found with recreational quantities of illegal drugs (although I might support fines, confiscation and compulsory treatment orders). Similarly, measures that prevent dependent users from obtaining help are probably doing more harm than good.
-
You know, I think many recreational drug users are quite focused on reducing suffering. [...] I think the cannabimimetics are a really difficult case. Ideally, no one should take them. They’re bad drugs, which makes regulation challenging.
Okay. I agree that this is ultimately about health and wellbeing and I would support a set of measures aimed at minimising harm. I hope those responsible for the reform effort have a firm grasp of addiction and the neurological consequences of drug use.
I'm a little older than I once was, and I've become... more open... to the idea that recreational drugs can influence our spiritual lives. In traditions such as Rastafarianism, Vodun and Thelema, drug use is considered beneficial. Other traditions approach the subject differently and I don't see how I'd plausibly convey the balance of risks to my 18 year old self.
In any event, I enjoyed the Shleu-Shleu mix from yesterday's post.
-
So legalising potentially dangerous and addictive substances might reduce some harm but sweep some of it under the carpet.
Recreational drug users sometimes leave the impression that they don't really care whether reform results in an increase in suffering or not.
US CDC figures state that 500,000 people have died using prescription painkillers, opioids and heroin over the last fifteen years. Facilitating the use of such substances is not going to reduce harm.
To be completely clear, the act of supplying addictive drugs to new users is unspeakably evil. What sort of lowlife sells an addictive poison to the homeless?
religious upbringing by any chance?
Growing up I knew a Wiccan who claimed to have a spirit guide that kept her safe. She starting experimenting with drugs, dropped out of school and turned to stripping and then prostitution to pay for heroin.
She became addicted and died of an overdose.
-
From the NYT: The Aria of Babyface Cauliflower Brown
-
Also, as you mentioned, I owe Labour's David Clark an apology:
But (the sightlines were poor) it was the other David, David Seymour of Act, who said that. Clark just kept blathering that Labour supported the recommendations of the Law Commission review of the MoDA, without ever saying which recommendations.
My love affair with the ACT Party looks set to continue.
-
Hard News: One big day at the drug symposium, in reply to Russell Brown,
I understand that the Joel case study relates to personal use.
While I take your point about social supply, addictive drugs don't get to social suppliers through lack of planning on the part of higher ups. People can be so very deliberately cruel where there's money to be made.
Would you agree that it also makes sense not to subject the people the people who suffer such harms to the further harm of being dragged through the courts?
I agree that there's no point in sending people to prison for recreational drug use. There's clearly scope for change but I'm wary of letting this particular genie out of the bottle. The sense that we're merely doing away with outdated attitudes and constraints poses some risk, I think.
I hope that any reforms ultimately offered are tough with respect to addictive drugs and that we fully provide for those who become addicted and for those who develop other health problems.
-
Maybe there's some context missing, but it's disappointing to see a Labour MP quoted saying:
"Decriminalisation is the worst of all worlds, probably worse than what we have now," said Labour's David Clark.
Whatever your views happen to be, the Misuse of Drugs Act covers many substances that are known to cause mental illness and other long term health problems. That's clearly what Bill English was trying to say and it's far from clear that legalisation is the best option.
"We need to move beyond raw public opinion" in engaging the public, talk with the affected community (offering input on drug law to the people who actually use drugs)
Don't overlook that other category of affected individuals: those who will be introduced to drugs because of the kinds of changes under discussion.
I thought that the Listener's recent editorial was sensible enough. This is from the Drug Foundation's model law you've linked to:
Joel 34y is having trouble with his meth use and feels like his life is spiralling out of control. He’s caught by Police with a small amount on his person. He’s given a caution, and because meth is a Class A drug, he’s sent to a brief intervention session the next day with a local health NGO. They recommend he seeks treatment and suggest a range of options. He decides to see a counsellor to help him address some of the underlying issues leading to his dependency on meth. He also joins a support group and is able to dramatically reduce his meth use.
I acknowledge that there's scope for reform but that's pretty optimistic stuff. The people who freely deal crystal meth knowingly sell human suffering and probably deserve to be treated accordingly.
-
The NYT has a précis and the video of the introduction to Trump's first full cabinet meeting.
Minority Leader Schumer's response is here.
-
Hard News: Interesting Britain!, in reply to Rich Lock,
I'm in a different part of the political spectrum to Corbyn but I thought Labour chose its domestic policy platform pretty well; 40% is a good result even after the change in the UKIP and LibDem vote shares are taken into account.
That said, I'm opposed to parts of Corbyn's worldview in ways that are independent of public opinion. I think we can retreat from misguided interventionism without supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, Venezuelan socialism and the dissolution of NATO. The idea that Osama bin Laden's death was "a tragedy" is astonishingly stupid.
Some unusual things have happened recently and I have a feeling that there's more going on than meets the eye.
-
There's a graphic in the FT compiled from election day polling by Lord Ashcroft which shows how the voting differed from 2015.
Ashcroft says that 57% of the 2015 UKIP vote went to the Conservatives; Labour won voters from UKIP, the LDs and the Greens.